Nicolle Wallace criticized President Trump after he announced on Truth Social that reporters from MS NOW, CNN and Politico would be barred from the White House press pool. Wallace called the ban "authoritarian in nature," argued it appears intended to intimidate journalists and blunt critical reporting, and said it conflicts with First Amendment principles and presidential precedent. She also linked the move to broader patterns of institutions yielding to pressure from Trump and warned historians may later question why no one intervened.
Nicolle Wallace Slams Trump's Ban On MS NOW Reporters As 'Authoritarian in Nature'
Nicolle Wallace on "Deadline White House" (Credit: YouTube/MS NOW)
Nicolle Wallace said on MS NOW that Donald Trump "woke up angry" on Friday after using Truth Social to announce he intended to bar reporters from MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House press pool.
Speaking on Deadline: White House, Wallace did not mince words, calling the move "authoritarian in nature and wrong on the law." She argued the ban appears designed to intimidate journalists and blunt aggressive coverage of the administration.
"If it's knowingly illegal, why do they do it?" Wallace asked, linking the action to what she described as broader capitulations by universities, law firms and media companies that settled with Mr. Trump. "He wants people to be afraid to cover him aggressively, and that, to me, seems like the intent of today's ban."
Wallace pointed to recent reporting from outlets not named in the ban — including a Fox News poll showing that 71% of voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy and coverage by The Wall Street Journal on Iran — as examples of reporting that likely frustrated the president, even if those outlets were not the ones singled out on Friday.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote: "Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."
Legal And Historical Stakes
Wallace warned that historians may later ask why officials did not act to stop efforts to remove or marginalize journalists who continue to report critically. She emphasized a longstanding constitutional principle and precedent that the White House cannot selectively bar unfavorable coverage without raising serious First Amendment concerns.
"In terms of the press, there is the First Amendment that protects our right to do this," she said. "The intention is to intimidate, is to chill, is to sand the edges off and make people afraid of doing their jobs."
The original report appeared on TheWrap.
Help us improve.
